Iran's View » headlinehttp://www.iransview.com The Persian PrespectiveMon, 12 Feb 2018 19:06:40 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.23How Iranian Reformists’ Victory Can Turn Into Defeat?http://www.iransview.com/how-iranian-reformists-victory-can-turn-into-defeat/1643/ http://www.iransview.com/how-iranian-reformists-victory-can-turn-into-defeat/1643/#commentsTue, 01 Mar 2016 19:26:35 +0000http://www.iransview.com/?p=1643the fact that Reformists could gain such a major support from the people is an undeniable reality for the political power sphere of the Islamic Republic and on the other hand this victory poses, at the same time, an opportunity and a threat for the winning Reformists.

Hassan Rowhani Casting his vote in a polling station in holy shrine of Abulazim, south of Tehran.

For Iranian reformists, the twin parliament and Assembly of Experts elections on February 26 were also a chance to blow new life to their presence in the power circle of the Islamic Republic which they lost after their rejection of the results of the 2009 presidential elections, leading to street riots and months of chaos in the capital city of Tehran.

Almost six years after those days, Reformists are cheering the election gains and are ecstatic about their unexpected wins in the ballot boxes and sweeping Principalists off parliament seats in the Tehran constituency.

However, the results in the other cities are different and both Principalists and Reformists have enough seats to be influential in the next parliament and the Assembly of Experts, but the fact that almost all of the Principalists’ prominent figures in Tehran failed to find their way into the Parliament (and in case of the Assembly of Experts, only Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati was elected ranking 16th out of the 16 seats reserved for the Tehran constituency) is a major blow to them which had the upper hand over the course of the past decade.

Though Reformists’ gain in the elections is also a result of their coalition with government supporters, known as the Moderates, as well as some moderate Principalist figures such as Ali Motahhari which led them to support coalition lists for the twin elections, the fact that Reformists could gain such a major support from the people is an undeniable reality for the political power sphere of the Islamic Republic and on the other hand this victory poses, at the same time, an opportunity and a threat for the winning Reformists.

Will Reformists seize the opportunity?

After 2009′s post-election disputes and street riots, many Reformist leaders were arrested and many of their aides who spurred the public into street riots had to flee the country; subsequently, the leadership in Iran lost its faith in the movement and to loyalty of prominent Reformist leaders. This lack of confidence in the Reformist movement and absence of its leaders and forces beside consecutive defeats in the national and local elections pushed reformist figures out of the political scene, minimizing their role.

After Hassan Rouhani won the 2013 presidential election, he tried to pave the way for the return of Reformists to the country’s political circle, while, he himself is not a Reformist and even was a serious critic of them while he served as the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council.

The full participation of the reformists in the recent elections (even Reformists’ leaders under house arrest invited their supporters to participate in the elections) and then the results of the recent twin elections and especially the landslide victory of the Reformists in Tehran showed that the movement is coming back into the political sphere of the country and will revive its status as a legitimate game-changer.

Now, it’s about time for Reformist leaders to engage in direct talks with the political leadership of the system and to iron out misunderstandings and address the existing issues with them. Overestimating their reemerging power and making the same mistake of playing the role of staunch opponents of the Islamic Republic can lead them to a process which will not have better results than they gain in recent years. But a negotiated resolution not only will recreate the confidence and trust of the Islamic Republic to them but will secure their return to highest levels of the power in the country.

Senior Reformist leader, Mohammadreza Aref

Dangers of a victory

If one was to study the voting pattern of the Iranians in last three decades, they would see Iranians mostly (if not always) make pragmatist decisions and never support a particular group because of their theoretical aims and promising rhetoric. Iranians evaluate the records of an official and after providing them enough time, they would decide to whether continue their support or terminate it. Unexpected victories of the Former reformist President Mohammad Khatami in 1997 and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005 presidential elections are good examples of how different choices Iranian people can make due to their experience of the incumbent officials.

For this reason, Rouhani’s government- which turned to be a facilitator for the return of Reformism – will have a critical time for the rest of its tenure. Now the Parliament is also in line with the government and in case the government fails in fulfilling its promises, Principalists cannot be blamed as being the trouble makers! While people are hoping for a better economic situation after giving Rouhani more than two years to reach a nuclear deal, possible excessive concentration of Reformists on their political causes may undermine their ability to make significant and tangible changes in the life of ordinary people and so lose their votes in future Presidential elections, after less than two years.

In the words of the senior reformist leader Mohammadreza Aref during his campaign for the 2013 Presidential election, each time both government and the parliament was controlled by one party the outcome was not satisfactory.

Another threat to the Reformists is their inability in understanding the ordinary and the lower-classes especially in the small cities. They are the sources that provided Ahmadinejad with enough vote to win two Presidential elections against the robust rivals from the Reformist and Conservative circles. Today’s threat to Reformism is to make their usual mistake of confusing Tehran and large cities’ political tendency with national sentiments and ignoring lower- classes and ordinary people for who politics is not a priority.

Next presidential elections will be the scene of a critical completion between the Moderates/ Reformists who were controlling two important sources of power for at least two years and the Principalists who were out of power for the same period. I believe it will be the incumbent government’s economic record that will determine the next winner.

]]>http://www.iransview.com/how-iranian-reformists-victory-can-turn-into-defeat/1643/feed/0Iran, US and Clash of Values’ Dilemmahttp://www.iransview.com/iran-us-and-clash-of-values-dilemma/1637/ http://www.iransview.com/iran-us-and-clash-of-values-dilemma/1637/#commentsFri, 12 Feb 2016 12:28:28 +0000http://www.iransview.com/?p=1637By: Sonia Mansour Robaey * 1. Values and the West’s double standards approach to ethical pluralism. Ethical pluralism is focused on individual preferences in modern pluralistic societies. It does not dictate what is ethical or what is not. It only creates a space for rational dialogue on the diversity of values aimed at reaching a consensus […]

Ethical pluralism is focused on individual preferences in modern pluralistic societies. It does not dictate what is ethical or what is not. It only creates a space for rational dialogue on the diversity of values aimed at reaching a consensus within the limits of reason. Ethical pluralism is practised in West for controversial moral issues like abortion, gay rights and Euthanasia. Although laws are legislated on these issues in some western countries, in many cases they do not constrain those who oppose them to live by them. It is believed that ethical pluralsim creates more tolerance and more freedoms for the individual. The essence of ethical pluralism is that moral codes cannot be forced, they emerge by consensus through a rational discourse and dialogue on values. Ethical pluralism represents the culmination of many centuries of western thinking in political Philosophy, moral Philosophy and Ethics. Ethical pluralism in western democracies is assumed for example in Jürgen Habermas’ ‘Discourse ethics’ where, within western societies, ethical diversity and pluralism require a commitment to rational discourse and dialogue.

However, wide dialogue, based on rational discourse and leading to consensus on moral values in western societies, is denied by the West to others when advancing its own set of values in non-western societies,

As such, western moral values, having emerged by consensus, are forced on other cultures and societies who did not participate in the rational discourse leading to a consensus on these values. Another difficulty in implementing western moral values in most non-western societies is related on the status of the self in society. Most non-western moral values are anchored, not in individual preferences, but in community norms, elders’ wisdoms and local laws, which ancient Greeks used to call ‘nomos’. In non-western societies, core values are transmitted between generations where intergenerational dialogue and closeness are strong, contrary to western societies. They are not discussed in the public sphere where they play a cohesive role in which the individual self identifies more with the community than with the ego.

There is a tension in the West’s approach to values which allows the individual a greater space of liberty within western societies but denies this liberty to individuals in other societies attached to their traditions and the norms of their communities. In fact, there is a faulty assumption in West that the individual Self in non-western societies is modeled on the western Self, despite historical and cultural differences. This tension has become palpable with the advent of the globalization of markets, cultures and ideas. The West stands as the promoter of one set of values, its own, over others, without regard to context, History, and culture. The West’s hegemonic approach to values is being tackled differently in non-western cultures, either by total assimilation, peaceful but active resistance, distrust and retreat, or violent resentful extremism directed against the West in the case of Sunni Islam. Colonialism was built on the assumption that the colonized were different in humanity while globalization is built on the assumption that ‘there is no such thing as society’, only individuals exist, as Margaret Thatcher famously said. Both colonialism and globalism approach non-western cultures with models of the individual self-forged in West and imposed on non-westerners, incompatible with many cultural and religious identities.

Ethical pluralism then, although unequally practiced by West, is not part of the relations the West establishes with other societies, where it is assumed that only individuals exist and that they must consume the product of the ethical consensus built by other individuals in West. Since 911, as the assumption grew for a ‘clash of civilisations’, there was an upsurge in this approach and the forcing of western values through military campaigns, invasions and occupations preceded and followed by violent backlashes from extremist fundamentalists. Post 911, international relations have become a domain of confrontations thought to be confrontations of civilisations and values.

2. A broken dialogue on values feeds terrorism and simulates for us a ‘clash of civilisations’

Many Muslims today live in communities, societies and countries which emphasize traditional values and the supremacy of the community over the individual. Although Muslims are not the only ones who live in traditions which are antagonists to western values, they are currently the main culture and religion to react and to be targeted by this confrontation and it is mainly Sunni Muslims who are engaged in this confrontation which has claimed many lives and wrecked many countries and their social fabrics through terrorism and the war on terror.

This is the reason why a dialogue on values is urgently needed between the West and Muslims. Some in the West as well as in Muslim countries do not believe in the dialogue on values, firmly standing on both sides of the values divide, committed to wars. But others believe in this dialogue. President Obama articulated his desire for dialogue with Muslims in his Cairo’s discourse early during his first mandate. But due to many factors, including America’s previous war commitments and voices of confrontation inside his own administration, Obama wasn’t able to act on his Cairo’s discourse. We will never know if Obama was sincere about this dialogue. But what we know is that he did not blindly follow those who wanted a confrontation to the end with Iran. Recently, Ayatollah Khamenei wrote on his twitter account that Obama wrote him a second letter in 2009 full of affirmative accounts about Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei said he had the intention to reply to the letter but after Obama supported the protests against the government in Iran in 2009 he refrained from doing so. Obama acted against the voices of confrontation with Iran, but not before the failure of the 2009 colour revolution for regime change. He finally succeeded in reaching a deal with Iran that, if its implementation is unhindered by more confrontation, should naturally open a dialogue on values between Muslims and the West.

On the Iranian side, the deal reached between Iran and the West silenced the voices of confrontation and opened possibilities to initiate a dialogue between Muslims and the West. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was first to open this dialogue on the values of Islam with his two letters to western youth (January 2015 letter and November 2015 letter). Khamenei’s initiatives came in a context of a renewed wave of Sunni terrorism by ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), more barbaric and more sectarian than the terrorism witnessed since 911, and threatening this time the Near East, the Levant and Europe.

While the nuclear deal was being worked out between the West and Iran during the year 2015, many terrorist attacks by Sunni Muslim extremists hit Muslim countries, especially Iraq and Syria, as well as Europe. Most notable were the two attacks in France in 2015, both claimed by ISIS, attracting wide and sustained attention in western media. ISIS is virulently anti-Iran and anti-Shia. It promotes a return to the Sunni Caliphate. Khamenei’s first letter spoke of a different kind of Islam in an attempt to educate western youth on the real sources of knowledge on Islam, away from the terrible and negative image that was being presented to the West by ISIS. The letter was deliberately addressed to youth because, as Khamenei argued, dialogue with western leaders was futile since they were the ones promoting the kind of Muslim extremism embodied by ISIS through the stigmatisation of Muslims and the religion of Islam. There is unwillingness in West, especially among those who fear and stigmatise Islam, to learn about the true religion of Islam and Muslims beyond the terrorists clichés. Ayatollah Khamenei’s second letter to western youth was published two weeks after the attacks on the Bataclan concert venue in Paris that claimed many youthful lives. In it, Ayatollah Khamenei chides the West for its double standards towards the victims of terrorism and for the imposition of western culture by force uniformly on Muslim societies.

Learning about the true religion of Islam, lifting the peaceful image of Islam and Muslims against the hateful image propagated by terrorists, finding common ground among differences in values, reaching out to youth, were also the main topics of Obama’s speech, and the first, in an American Mosque in Baltimore On February 3, 2016. Obama’s speech at the Mosque was in many ways a foreign policy speech too in which he condemned sectarian policies implicitly criticising Saudi regional policy. At some point he addressed his critics who say his policy against ISIS is not clear by stating that clarity against terrorists can be found only in countering their message of division, sectarianism and hate. Obama quoted passages from the Qoran more than once during his speech. Only two years ago, such a move by Obama, going to a Mosque, delivering directly to Muslims a message of peace and quoting the Qoran, was unthinkable. What happened between the Cairo speech and the Baltimore Speech? The hate didn’t stop, the terrorism didn’t stop, the divisions and the confrontations didn’t stop. To be fair to Obama, the Cairo speech was meant to inaugurate an era of dialogue between the West and Islam, but Obama couldn’t act on this alone, he needed partners among Muslims leaders in the ME. The Baltimore speech comes after the nuclear deal with Iran, Iran’s participation in the fight against ISIS, and the endless possibilities for finding common ground between the West and Islam these events may produce. Obama also realized that an American Mosque and the Muslim American community are the best place to start this dialogue, not Cairo.

3. A clash of values is not a clash of civilisations.

Although the lives lost to terrorism in France and the West in general aren’t more precious than other lives taken by blind terrorism elsewhere, the attacks in France and the West create a greater wedge between European and Muslim populations at large, inside and outside, in neighbouring countries around the Meditterranean basin, and beyond in the Asian and African continents where the majority of Muslims live. While American neocons, who so much wish for the clash of civilizations, rejoice of the increasing wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims far from their own shores separated and shielded from this clash by two oceans, Europe is increasingly becoming the theatre of the clash.

What is the nature of this clash? It is important to make a distinction here between the clash of civllizations and the clash of values. While the clash of civilizations includes also a clash of values, it is about more than values. The clash of civilisations leads to wars because civilizations aim for self preservation and fight against their annihilation. The term ‘civilisation’ implies not only values but a geopolitical, economic and military space. The clash of values can be approached differently and resolved through dialogue. Even inside western societies there is a clash of values. This is why western societies practise ethical pluralism. Values can intersect between two civilizations and common ground can be found amid differences. Many values evolve from the inside, but also from contacts with other civlizations. In the ancient times, these contacts were mostly established through wars. The citizens of ancient Greece considered non-Greeks as barbarians and non-humans because ancient Greece was a ‘closed’ civilisation, that is until the advent of Alexander’s conquests and the Hellenistic period that followed.

The term ‘clash of civilisations’ is greatly misleading. It implies a geopolitical confrontation. It is both a testimony to the neocons’ warring agenda as well as to their backward thinking. Wars aren’t needed today to establish contacts between civilisations or resolve differences in values between civilisations. Today’s means of communication are many, multi-level, fast and easy. The fall of the former communist bloc countries should have led us to a more cooperative, less confrontational world, militarily speaking. Instead, the neocons created the clash of civilisations set-up to produce more wars and more confrontations to advance American hegemony in a unipolar world. With 911 and its aftermath, Sunni Muslim terrorism, initially born out from the collaboration of America’s cold war ideology and Sunni Wahhabism against the former communist bloc, set the scene worldwide for a spectacular and threatening clash of values with humiliations, provocations and blasphemy of religious symbols. A clash of values enacted amid wars, fear and mongering on the world scene, leading to greater divisions, erasing the common ground between civilisations, fulfilling the ‘clash of civilisations’ prophecy.

It is Europe and Asia where most people on the planet, and most Muslims live, that are set to take the full impact of this clash being prepared for decades now by the neocons. The neocons’ game in Europe is to treat Europe’s woes resulting from a clash of values between east and west, between north and south, with more confrontations and wars. The neocons who are the promoters of the clash of civilisations are the new enemies of the Open Society.

This is the post 911 reality created by the neocons. A world that has every possible tool to make communication and dialogue on many issues, including values, easy and natural, yet is locked in confrontations and wars. As it takes two to dance, the neocons’ project to produce a clash of civilisations is greatly helped by Sunni Muslim resentful extremism and its state sponsors.

Fortunately for us, the majority of Muslims do not want this clash of civilisations which has been hurting Muslim countries and Muslims more than others. Fortunately for us too, Iran refuses to engage in the clash of civilisations. Amid the tensions created by 911, Iran has shown the world it can make peace without losing its dignity by not responding to the humiliations and provocations of those who want wars for the sake of wars. I have argued before that both the nuclear deal and Khamenei’s letter to western youth form a coherent approach by Iran to treat the woes of Islam and show the West that there is an alternative to confrontation with Islam and Muslims through dialogue on values and the respect for the dignity of others.

Those in the West who want a dialogue on values with Muslims to peacefully resolve differences instead of a clash of civilisations and wars can now count on Iran’s leadership. A dialogue on values can be much more enriching than the forcing of western values on Muslim societies. A dialogue on values doesn’t and shouldn’t end by one set of values taking on another but by finding common ground amid differences. That’s the essence of communication and diplomacy and the respect for the dingity of others and our common humanity.

The US however, despite the nuclear deal and the recent détente with Iran, is still very much sitting on the fence, between war and peace. Hesitations and mixed messages, as well as Obama’s end of mandate, risk annihilating the dialogue that the Iran deal is promising, putting the initiative back in the hands of the neocons. Obama’s last year in office must prove decisive in its open approach to the ills born out from the confrontation with Islam and Muslims if we are to bend the arc of History definitively away from the neocons.

]]>http://www.iransview.com/iran-us-and-clash-of-values-dilemma/1637/feed/1Iran N.Deal, Future of Islam and A.Khamenei’s Letter to Western Youthhttp://www.iransview.com/iran-n-deal-future-of-islam-and-a-khameneis-letter-to-western-youth/1562/ http://www.iransview.com/iran-n-deal-future-of-islam-and-a-khameneis-letter-to-western-youth/1562/#commentsThu, 27 Aug 2015 06:06:55 +0000http://www.iransview.com/?p=1562If you followed the nuclear deal and you didn’t pay attention to ‘Letter for you’, then you didn’t understand the most important thing about the deal: a dialogue of civilizations on the basis of mutual respect and dignity against the new barbarisms that threaten Islam.

If I were a faithful and pious Muslim and if I were to take a look at the state of the religion of Islam and Muslims today, I would be extremely worried. And even though I am not a Muslim faithful but an Arab secular Christian woman, I can still worry for my Muslim sisters and brothers and the religion of Islam. This is not a selfless concern. The future of minorities in the Middle East depends largely on the state of the Muslim religion, which is the religion of the majority. Also, the Muslim religion and its people are part and parcel of my cultural background, of who I am as an Arab Christian, as much as Muslims of the Middle East are culturally shaped by their presence as pieces in a mosaic of religions and sects, which the region never ceased to be, until al Qaeda and its most notorious branch, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIS, came to be.

Again, as an Arab Christian, I was educated not on the holy Qur’an, but on the religion of Islam and its History. I grew up seeing Islam as a religion of conquest and enlightenment in the Arts and Sciences. I grew up seeing Islam as a forward progressive religion. Of course, as in every religion, I could perceive some extremism here and there, some backwardness, but these seemed marginal, or so was my perception during the late seventies, early eighties, until al Qaeda and its most notorious branch, ISIS, came to be.

Since 911, I have been asking myself: what happened to Islam? More so since the emergence and mainstreaming of sectarian killings inside Iraq after the 2003 US invasion and the recent mass displacements of religious minorities by ISIS in the Middle East, the largest since the Ottoman Empire disintegrated.

To answer this question one must understand what happened between the late seventies and the early eighties and how the struggles born out of these years came to their conclusion as the iron curtain fell on the Soviet bloc ushering in a short era of revigorated and unchallenged American and western imperialism.

During these decisive years, we witnessed an Islamic revolution in Iran that rose against western imperialism while another Islamic movement in Afghanistan came to be subsumed, and consumed, by the goals of western imperialism. We also witnessed a war on Iran from the West, with Iraq as a proxy, meant to challenge to the nascent Islamic revolution of Iran. These events, which will lead to a profound misunderstanding inside Islam, took place after the strong anti-imperialist sentiment in the Middle East, in which Palestine was the main conduit, was sidelined through a partial peace between Israel and Egypt. The Palestine struggle was buried by partial peace and the Palestinian resistance lost the support of most Arab states. This was going to lead to the still-born Oslo peace process and the slow asphyxiation of the Palestinian struggle, while Israeli settlements flourished as they continue to do until today.

The eighties end with the triumph of western imperialism. But in the Middle East, the Islamic revolution of Iran stood in the way of this triumph, albeit weakened and its society profoundly wounded by the Iraq war. After the end of the Iraq-Iran war and Ayatollah’s Khomeini’s death, the Islamic revolution of Iran had survived but the country was going to spend the next decade rebuilding itself amid a climate of increasing hostility, unilateral and multilateral sanctions.

Iran’s Islamic revolution inspired many and in many ways in the region. Islamist groups and Islamist movements rose in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. Only few survived and those who did, like Hezbollah, did so because they understood the spirit of the Islamic revolution of Iran, as it stood, as an Islamist insurgency, first and foremost, against western imperialism. Hezbollah resonated with the populations of the Arab world because it revived the Palestinian struggle and the struggle against western imperialism. At the same time, Hamas was born to challenge the occupation of Palestine, based on a non-compromising attitude toward the occupation, but with a different spirit marked by the context of inter Palestinian rivalry heavily weighed by outside and competing regional influences.

This is why Hamas and Hezbollah, two groups moved by the same goal for many years, find themselves today at odds because the forces that have been pulling Muslims apart since the event of the Islamic revolution of Iran, not only are still at work today, but they are now aided by scores of terrorist Takfiri groups claiming to be working for Muslims and Islam.

The Islamic revolution of Iran had clearly designated the anti-imperialist struggle as the defining project of modern Islam. But the Islamic revolution of Iran was not the only Islamic movement renewing the search to redefine Islam in modern times. However, the Islamist groups who came before it and most of those who were inspired by it sought a return to an era of Islam before western imperialism to find the tools to challenge western imperialism. Thus, the nostalgic return to Islam resulted in ambiguity toward the West. I am thinking here specifically of the Muslim Brotherhood. The ambiguity is in confronting modern western imperialism with conceptual tools that existed before this imperialism. This is at best a flight strategy, at worst, a legitimization of Wahhabism, the gangrene that’s been eating at the heart of Islam. Ambiguity exists also in the fact that running away from modernity prevents these movements from ever understanding imperialism, replacing understanding with mystification, leaving modernity to exert a fascination on their entire ideological conceptual apparatus without ever being able to understand it.

This is a tragic misunderstanding, by the insurgent Sunni branch of Islam, of how to conduct the struggle for relevance against western imperialism and renew the search to redefine Islam in modern times. Western imperialism, in its essence, is about the superiority of science and technology. By choosing nostalgia and pre-imperialist conceptual tools, insurgent Sunni Islam could then only fight western technical superiority and the way of life it implies with increased barbarism. Hence, al-Qaeda and ISIS.

The Islamic revolution of Iran, on the other side, has sought to fight western imperialism with the elements of its alleged superiority; technology. But contrary to other Muslim countries that had sought nuclear technology as a way to achieve military superiority, like the West, Iran sought nuclear technology only for civilian purposes and as a right to achieve equal status, to oppose to western imperialism the right to dignity. Because western imperialism sees itself as superior in status, it refuses dignity to others, to subdued countries, and it does so mainly through technology.

]]>http://www.iransview.com/iran-n-deal-future-of-islam-and-a-khameneis-letter-to-western-youth/1562/feed/1Gazprom after Iranian Savvy Developed Under Sanctionshttp://www.iransview.com/gazprom-after-iranian-savvy-developed-under-sanctions/1553/ http://www.iransview.com/gazprom-after-iranian-savvy-developed-under-sanctions/1553/#commentsFri, 08 May 2015 09:23:59 +0000http://www.iransview.com/?p=1553The representative of the Russian oil giant Gazprom in the Iran’s International Oilshow says the company seeks to obtain the technological know-how and equipments Iran has acquired under the western sanctions.

]]>The representative of the Russian oil giant Gazprom in the Iran’s 20th International Oil, Gas, Refining & Petrochemical Exhibition says the company seeks to obtain the technological know-how and equipments Iran has acquired under the western sanctions.

“Iran has been in sanctions condition for the past 12 years, and Russia is sanctioned too; so we have some joint interests to discuss. I look over the Iranian market and we know Iran has great experiences in working in these sanctions conditions which is much favored by Russia,” Sergey Lasutenko said in an interview with IransView’s Mojtaba Mousavi.

He said Iran and Russia are two of the biggest oil and gas countries in the world; adding Iran has great oil and gas reserves as Russia does and both countries have some big experiences in exploration and production of crude oil and other hydrocarbon products.

“We have some very close views on the market. The idea is to unify our forces. It is work of professionals to promote these ideas but the potentials in political and economical situations are very big. I think it will be very fruitful to cooperate,” he added.

He said Gazprom does not have many activities in Iran at the moment but it will be doing major projects in the near future.

“In the field of exploration, we can cooperate with Iran. Iran has a lot of experiences in constructing some machines and tools for drilling under the sanctions,” he said.

He added Gazprom is estimating the Iranian market to estimate the Iranian forcibility and work of equipment production.

“We have technologies and Iran has its own. We have a great experience in offshore works. Gazprom is very good at sea drilling. We know that Iran has two seas: the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea; the Persian Gulf is very rich with gas and oil reserves and we can cooperate in the field.”

Iran and Russia are much closer than Iran and the US, he said, adding Tehran and Moscow have some platform to discuss in the oil and gas sectors.

Both Iran and Russia have great experience in drilling. Russia’s Gazprom has the biggest pipeline systems in the world, he said.

]]>http://www.iransview.com/gazprom-after-iranian-savvy-developed-under-sanctions/1553/feed/0Iran Leader Reached out for Western Youth Through Rare Open Letterhttp://www.iransview.com/iran-leader-reached-western-youth-rare-open-letter/1509/ http://www.iransview.com/iran-leader-reached-western-youth-rare-open-letter/1509/#commentsThu, 22 Jan 2015 14:22:21 +0000http://www.iransview.com/?p=1509Iran's View has launched a campaign calling European and North American youth to post their responses to the Supreme Leader's letter. A select number of the replies will be communicated with Leader's office.

]]>In an unprecedented open letter, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei appealed “to the Youth in Europe and North America” to make an effort to understand Islam before condemning it.

In the letter, Iran’s leader asks a series of questions from its readers like if they have directly read the Qur’an of the Muslims or have studied the teachings of the Prophet of Islam and his “humane and ethical doctrines”? And possibly most importantly whether they have ever received the message of Islam from any sources other than the media?

Condemning terrorist groups like ISIS and Boko Haram, the leader ends his message on a hopeful note on how the future generations will write history if they have accurate information about global developments.

Iran denounced the shooting at the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo but has also condemned as “provocative” its publication last week of a cartoon of Prophet Mohammad.

Referring to the recent events in France, the leader then asked that readers “study and research the incentives behind this widespread tarnishing of the image of Islam” and “try to gain a direct and firsthand knowledge of this religion.” He added, “I don’t insist that you accept my reading or any other reading of Islam. What I want to say is: Don’t allow this dynamic and effective reality in today’s world to be introduced to you through resentments and prejudices.”

Iran’s View has launched a campaign calling the Western youth to post their responses to the Ayatollah Khamenei’s letter.A select number of the replies will be communicated with Leader’s office.

Leave you comments under this article or send them to this email: letter4u@iransview.com

Read the entire letter and watch a video of the 10 questions asked from the Western youth by Ayatollah Khamenei:

Message of ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, Leader of The Islamic Republic of Iran

In the name of God, the Beneficent the Merciful

To the Youth in Europe and North America,

The recent events in France and similar ones in some other Western countries have convinced me to directly talk to you about them. I am addressing you, [the youth], not because I overlook your parents, rather it is because the future of your nations and countries will be in your hands; and also I find that the sense of quest for truth is more vigorous and attentive in your hearts.

I don’t address your politicians and statesmen either in this writing because I believe that they have consciously separated the route of politics from the path of righteousness and truth.

I would like to talk to you about Islam, particularly the image that is presented to you as Islam. Many attempts have been made over the past two decades, almost since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, to place this great religion in the seat of a horrifying enemy. The provocation of a feeling of horror and hatred and its utilization has unfortunately a long record in the political history of the West.

Here, I don’t want to deal with the different phobias with which the Western nations have thus far been indoctrinated. A cursory review of recent critical studies of history would bring home to you the fact that the Western governments’ insincere and hypocritical treatment of other nations and cultures has been censured in new historiographies.

The histories of the United States and Europe are ashamed of slavery, embarrassed by the colonial period and chagrined at the oppression of people of color and non-Christians. Your researchers and historians are deeply ashamed of the bloodsheds wrought in the name of religion between the Catholics and Protestants or in the name of nationality and ethnicity during the First and Second World Wars. This approach is admirable.

By mentioning a fraction of this long list, I don’t want to reproach history; rather I would like you to ask your intellectuals as to why the public conscience in the West awakens and comes to its senses after a delay of several decades or centuries. Why should the revision of collective conscience apply to the distant past and not to the current problems? Why is it that attempts are made to prevent public awareness regarding an important issue such as the treatment of Islamic culture and thought?

You know well that humiliation and spreading hatred and illusionary fear of the “other” have been the common base of all those oppressive profiteers. Now, I would like you to ask yourself why the old policy of spreading “phobia” and hatred has targeted Islam and Muslims with an unprecedented intensity. Why does the power structure in the world want Islamic thought to be marginalized and remain latent? What concepts and values in Islam disturb the programs of the super powers and what interests are safeguarded in the shadow of distorting the image of Islam? Hence, my first request is: Study and research the incentives behind this widespread tarnishing of the image of Islam. My second request is that in reaction to the flood of prejudgments and disinformation campaigns, try to gain a direct and firsthand knowledge of this religion. The right logic requires that you understand the nature and essence of what they are frightening you about and want you to keep away from.

I don’t insist that you accept my reading or any other reading of Islam. What I want to say is: Don’t allow this dynamic and effective reality in today’s world to be introduced to you through resentments and prejudices. Don’t allow them to hypocritically introduce their own recruited terrorists as representatives of Islam.

Receive knowledge of Islam from its primary and original sources. Gain information about Islam through the Qur’an and the life of its great Prophet. I would like to ask you whether you have directly read the Qur’an of the Muslims. Have you studied the teachings of the Prophet of Islam and his humane, ethical doctrines? Have you ever received the message of Islam from any sources other than the media?

Have you ever asked yourself how and on the basis of which values has Islam established the greatest scientific and intellectual civilization of the world and raised the most distinguished scientists and intellectuals throughout several centuries?

I would like you not to allow the derogatory and offensive image-buildings to create an emotional gulf between you and the reality, taking away the possibility of an impartial judgment from you. Today, the communication media have removed the geographical borders. Hence, don’t allow them to besiege you within fabricated and mental borders.

Although no one can individually fill the created gaps, each one of you can construct a bridge of thought and fairness over the gaps to illuminate yourself and your surrounding environment. While this preplanned challenge between Islam and you, the youth, is undesirable, it can raise new questions in your curious and inquiring minds. Attempts to find answers to these questions will provide you with an appropriate opportunity to discover new truths.

Therefore, don’t miss the opportunity to gain proper, correct and unbiased understanding of Islam so that hopefully, due to your sense of responsibility toward the truth, future generations would write the history of this current interaction between Islam and the West with a clearer conscience and lesser resentment.

]]>http://www.iransview.com/iran-leader-reached-western-youth-rare-open-letter/1509/feed/0Arming West Bank only Way to Save Palestinehttp://www.iransview.com/arming-west-bank-way-save-palestine/1487/ http://www.iransview.com/arming-west-bank-way-save-palestine/1487/#commentsSat, 02 Aug 2014 10:48:49 +0000http://www.iransview.com/?p=1487The photos of Palestinians fighting back Israeli military by throwing stones may give one a better idea when those stones are to be replaced by weapons provided from Iran or other supporters of Palestinians freedom fighters.

]]>Watching the Palestinian Permanent Observer to the United Nations, Riyadh Mansour walking pessimistically outside the UN Security Council chambers on late Thursday meant the council failed once again to play its role on the Gaza crisis.

While more than 1,600 Palestinians have been killed and another 8,000 injured and more than 200,000 internally displaced persons are sheltered in UNRWA since Israel launched an full scale air attack against the tiny strip of Gaza on July 8, yet the international community failed to stop Israeli indiscriminately offensives .

UN’s human rights council passed a resolution condemning the Israel’s military actions; resolution was adopted by 29-1 vote. The sole “no” vote was the United States. Strong US support for Israel and Israel’s powerful lobby prevented any effective decision being made by the international organizations. Same was for more than last six decades of Israel – Palestine conflict.

Smoke billows from the rubble of the Imam Al Shafaey mosque, destroyed in an overnight Israeli strike in the northern Gaza Strip on August 2, 2014. Photo: PressTV

In such circumstance when Palestinians see none of political efforts could protect them against the well-armed regime of Israel, in the Gaza strip, they prefer to resist rather than to continue living under an inhuman blockade.

Palestinians who lost of most of their land due to Israeli occupation since 1946, now only rule in the West Bank and Gaza strip. Two separate landlocked territories with two different ruling systems.

The Gaza under Hamas has chosen military resistance to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation. On other hand, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in the West Bank recognized Israel In 1993 and accepted to stop fighting against Israel and engage in a peace process which went nowhere so far.

It was only after PLO put down its weapon that the Palestinians lost their control over the West Bank and Israel occasionally conduct crackdown in the region, arrest or kill civilians.

Looking at the West Bank as a sample of setting back from military resistance, Palestinians don’t see a successful experience while on other hand Lebanon’s Hezbollah successfully defeated Israel and ended the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territories in 2000 make resistance in Gaza more meaningful.

Like Hezbollah, Hamas is fighting Israel with military and financial support from Iran. It was Iranian missiles and arms that led Hamas to stop Israel in the 2008 and 2012 conflicts.

Despite Iran and Hamas’ strained relations over the Syrian war, Iran’s political and military officials have stressed their unconditional and strong support for Palestinian resistance groups including Hamas.

The letter of the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force to the Palestinian freedom fighters on July 31 is the latest exemplar of the support for Palestinians resistance from Iran.

“Before the almighty God, we take an oath with the martyrs that we will remain bound to and not change, just like we are and have been in doing our religious duty in supporting the resistance. We emphasize that we continue to insist on the victory of the resistance … until the ground, the sky, the sea for the Zionists turns into hell,” Qasem Soleimani wrote.

While Israel and US are trying to disarm resistance movements, Iran called on the world to help arm Palestinians in the West Bank.

“Everyone, whoever has the means, especially in the Islamic world, they should do what they can to arm the Palestinians [in the West Bank] too,” Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei said on July 29.

“Iran will also do its best to form military resistance in the West Bank. But obviously we won’t deal with Abbas and its people, we will work with real resistance groups,” Abdollahi who is familiar with the Iranian strategy in Palestine told Iran’s View.

Soleimani excluded Fatah and PA in his statement while naming Palestinian groups and leaders and praising their resistance.

But what an armed West Bank would mean for Israel?

Palestinians protesting against Israel in West Bank. Photo: Vice.com

West Bank has a population of more than 2,000,000 Palestinians who anxiously follow the events in Gaza and show their support from the resistance movement by protesting against Israel.

The photos and videos of Palestinians protesting and fighting back Israeli military by throwing stones may give one a better idea when those stones are to be replaced by weapons provided from Iran or other supporters of Palestinians freedom fighters.

In this case, Iran expects Palestinians to defend themselves against Israel in a more balanced battle.

The final solution to the Palestinian–Israeli conflict however is seen differently by Iran.Iran suggests that all current and former inhabitants of the Palestinian territory should participate in a referendum and decide on their fate and future.

Israel opens fire on largest West Bank protest in a decade. Photo: vice.com

]]>http://www.iransview.com/arming-west-bank-way-save-palestine/1487/feed/1Iran’s Leader Sets The Tone For The Rowhani’s Administrationhttp://www.iransview.com/irans-leader-sets-the-tone-for-the-rowhanis-administration/1349/ http://www.iransview.com/irans-leader-sets-the-tone-for-the-rowhanis-administration/1349/#commentsMon, 22 Jul 2013 12:51:18 +0000http://www.iransview.com/?p=1349Ayatollah Khamenei once again criticized the post 2009 election street riots and said: "Power transition in Iran was always calm and smooth, except for 2009 in which some people made blunders and pushed the country on the verge of collapse."

]]>In a meeting with the Iran’s senior officials the country’s supreme leader Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei called the latest presidential election in Iran, a blessing from God and the transition of power is an opportunity to follow Imam’s Khomeini’s Path.

“True approaches of the revolution set by Imam Khomeini are clear and there’s no need to re-evaluate,” he said on Sunday.

Ayatollah Khamenei once again criticized the post 2009 election street riots and said: “Power transition in Iran was always calm and smooth, except for 2009 in which some people made blunders and pushed the country on the verge of collapse.”

“The Islamic Republic and the Iranian nation proposed a new model to the world; a healthy power transition without the common tricks in the west,” He added.

At the beginning of the session, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad read the report on what has been done in his 8 years of presidency.

Ayatollah Khamenei implicitly criticized some remarks by reformists against Ahmadinejad.

Newly elected president Hassan Rowhani was also present in the session. Ayatollah Khamenei’s remark to the next administration revealed that the Leader is not content with reformists cruel criticizing Ahmadinejad’s administration and believes that Ahmadinejad made more good in his administration than his failures.

“Every administration should take a positive look at his predecessor. It is worthy that the next administration shows as much enthusiasm and energy as the previous one.”

Stressing on the Diplomacy of Resistance

He also noted actions of some of the foreign countries against Iran, saying “Arrogant powers, some western leaders and some weak regional leaders formed a huge front against Iran that has not been done against any other country,”

“We have to be patient and resist the enemy front. We have to strengthen our national and domestic power to continue our advancement and reaching Idealistic goals,” Ayatollah Khamenei said.

Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei greets the president elect Hassan Rowhani during a meeting on July 21,2013. (Photo Credit: Khamenei.ir)

He insisted on officials not to recoil on foreign pressures and said: “Our officials shouldn’t hesitate when facing political, economic and propaganda pressures by the enemies,”

“Senior officials, law makers and all officials in the country should focus on two main priorities which are economic issues and scientific advancement.”

“Our pace in scientific advancement in the past 10 years was very significant but we shouldn’t slow down. Because we have to keep pace to reach the front lines of science in the world.”

Interactions With the World is OK but US Proved We Shouldn’t Be Optimistic

“We have always believed in the interaction with the world but any interaction must be based on a proper recognition of the other side,” he said.

He reiterated the importance of noting other countries’ history with Iran and said: “When interacting with the world, we should not forget our enemy’s history; even if we don’t speak of it for some reasons.”

“I have previoulsy said that I’m not optimistic about direct talks, even though I didn’t bar direct talks in special circumstances like in Iraq.” said the Supreme Leader regarding recent remarks by US officials for direct talks.

“US officials are untrustworthy and not logical and not honest,” he said.

“US officials’ remarks in the past several months show that we shouldn’t be optimistic,” He added.

Hassan Rowhani said several times that he’s after improving relations with the world.

We can take the Leader’s remarks about interaction with the world as a rule of law for the next administration

“One should continue his path in global interaction without being stopped by enemies and it is harmful to make a U turn when interacting with the world.”

]]>http://www.iransview.com/irans-leader-sets-the-tone-for-the-rowhanis-administration/1349/feed/0US Policies Of Violence Are Feeding Muslim Vengeance: Iranian Top Commanderhttp://www.iransview.com/us-policies-of-violence-are-feeding-muslim-vengeance-iranian-top-commander/1313/ http://www.iransview.com/us-policies-of-violence-are-feeding-muslim-vengeance-iranian-top-commander/1313/#commentsThu, 04 Jul 2013 11:42:58 +0000http://www.iransview.com/?p=1313Even worse than the killing of 290 innocent passengers of Airbus is the atrocity of the American government than president who instead of apologizing and being ashamed gave medals of honor to the criminal who did it [Captain William Rogers], which shows it was an intentional, organized planned and ruthless crime and contrary to what the American officials say it was not a mistake so the US must expect a big and hard vengeance from the Muslim Nation.

]]>Brigadier General Mohammad-Reza Naghdi, Commander of the Iran’s Basij force, warned the US over its intriguing and supporting the crisis and killings of innocent Muslims in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria.

“If we annually express our outrage over the US killing 290 of our dear countrymen including 60 children, we should not think America’s crime is only limited to this. America is not just responsible for the killing of 290 passengers of Airbus [flight 655]. The ruthless regime is responsible for killing over 220 thousands of our martyrs.”

Naghdi said the killings of tens of thousands of Iranians by Shah’s regime were ordered by the US. He blamed the US for ordering the crimes and terrors carried by anti-Iran terrorist groups like MEK who killed 17 thousands of the oppressed and defenseless people of Iran; including men, women, children, the youth, and the elderly.

“Everybody knows Saddam Hossein attacked Iran with the support order of the US,” the Commander added.

Even worse than the killing of 290 innocent passengers of Airbus is the atrocity of the American government than president who instead of apologizing and being ashamed gave medals of honor to the criminal who did it [Captain William Rogers], which shows it was an intentional, organized planned and ruthless crime and contrary to what the American officials say it was not a mistake so the US must expect a big and hard vengeance from the Muslim Nation.

]]>http://www.iransview.com/us-policies-of-violence-are-feeding-muslim-vengeance-iranian-top-commander/1313/feed/0Today Is The Anniversary Of The US Killing Of 290 Civilians On An Iranian Airlinerhttp://www.iransview.com/today-is-the-anniversary-of-the-us-killing-of-290-civilians-on-an-iranian-airliner/1281/ http://www.iransview.com/today-is-the-anniversary-of-the-us-killing-of-290-civilians-on-an-iranian-airliner/1281/#commentsWed, 03 Jul 2013 08:50:36 +0000http://www.iransview.com/?p=1281Today Is The Anniversary Of The US Killing Of 290 Civilians On An Iranian Airliner

]]>At 9:00 a.m. on July 3rd 1988, and at what proved to be the final days of Iran-Iraq war, American warships entered into conflict with a number of Iranian patrol boats in the Persian Gulf.

The gunboats of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Republic that were present in the area retaliated. Meanwhile a number of American helicopters opened fire on the Army of Guardian’s boat and in response the Iranian boats fired at the helicopters, shooting one down.

Later that day the Iranian civilian Flight 655 departed Bandar Abbas Airport for Dubai at 5:10 pm with 290 people on board; 156 men, 53 women, 57 kids aging 2 to 12, and 8 babies aging 2 or less. Other than Iranians there were people from other countries on board including India, Pakistan, Yugoslavia, Italy, and the United Arab Emirates.

The American warship Vincennes had departed San Diego on 25 April 1988, and was in Iran’s waters for adventure.

As the Iranian airliner was climbing to 14,000 feet, the USS Vincennes headed by Captain William Rogers, fired two surface-to-air missiles at the airliner. It suddenly vanished in the radars and fire and smoke appeared on the sky. The watchtower in Bandar Abbas Airport asked about the flight from Dubai airport but they said they had no information.

Immediately after the event, American officials claimed they shot down an Iranian F-14 and later they claimed the airliner had been flying out of the assigned civilian Air Corridor and that they sent seven warning radio messages to the plane but received no answer.

Four years later new points were made in the New York Times that emphasized the American warship had been in the Iranian waters and not international waters, revealing a Pentagon cover-up of the incident.

“For no clear reason the Vincennes approached Iranian waters being equipped with advanced artillery and long-range missiles. This shows the warship had been prepared for a bad action,” Admiral William Crowe, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Reagan told the BBC.

The Iranian airliner that was an Airbus A300B2-203 was very different from F-14 considering dimensions, shape, size, and flying capabilities. Moreover the American warship could easily listen to the pilot’s conversations and understand it was a passenger flight.

Despite the claims not only the Vincennes’ warnings didn’t reach the airliner no other civil source received the warnings.

Iran expressed its complaint over the shooting down to the international community.

Iran’s View arranged an interview with Vahid Ahmadi who had then been an MP to get more information over the issue. He was also an advisor to the foreign Minister and is now a member of National Security and Foreign Policy Committee in the parliament.

Mr. Ahmadi considered the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane to be related to the conditions of Iran-Iraq war. “Iran had the upper hand at that time and Saddam was under much pressure. Therefore the US wanted to make another front against Iran and help Saddam.”

“The United States intended to distract Iran to something other than the Iraqi war front and warn Iran that America might militarily enter the war,” added Mr. Ahmadi. He called the reasons given by the Americans a “lie” and “justification” and insisted there are proofs and evidences that show it was a planned and intentional action. He called the event a black page in the history of the US that alone nullifies all their human rights claims.

He also referred to the ineffective statement issued by the UN Security Council and the verdict by The international Hague Court which only sentenced the US to pay $95 million in compensation.

“Iran is still following the case and we expect the new president to put it on his agenda until the military heads in the warship are sentenced and the US officially apologizes [to Iranians], Mr Ahmadi noted.

]]>http://www.iransview.com/today-is-the-anniversary-of-the-us-killing-of-290-civilians-on-an-iranian-airliner/1281/feed/9Iran Offers Help To Egypt in Handling The Country’s Crisishttp://www.iransview.com/iran-offers-help-to-egypt-in-handling-the-countrys-crisis/1261/ http://www.iransview.com/iran-offers-help-to-egypt-in-handling-the-countrys-crisis/1261/#commentsTue, 02 Jul 2013 06:05:35 +0000http://www.iransview.com/?p=1261Egyptians had enough of Morsi after one year. Sunday 30th June was the anniversary of Morsi's inauguration when government oppositions have called on people to gather in Tahrir Squar and demand Morsi to relinquish power and an early election to be held.

“Tehran has offered its help to Egypt in handling the crisis and restoring peace in the country,” Hosseini said

“It was expected that Egyptian government will include every political group and party involved in the revolution against Hosni Mubarak and they have a share in the government. But this never happened,”

“While Egyptian revolution was in its middle stages, Morsi couldn’t have a uniting approach toward political groups and meeting people’s demands, “he said.

“Muslim Brotherhood was iconic for its stance against the Zionist regime and world powers in decades. But Morsi didn’t act accordingly. In fact, the president was ignorant of to the country’s independence, domestic capabilities and skilled Egyptians and did not use revolutionaries in his administration,” he said

But Hosseini thinks Morsi still has a chance to return and make reforms “only if he pays attention to what people want and learn some lessons from the revolutions in the region.”

“Morsi should sit at the negotiation table with the representative of the opposition and form people groups involving every opposition. Intellectuals in the opposition should be made sure that their say will be used by the government.”

“Iran respects the Egyptian revolution though the recent developments are domestic issues and Iranian officials hope that negotiations between the Egyptian government and the oppositions will provide stability for the country,” he said.